Post by jguildersleeve on Jun 30, 2008 18:49:29 GMT -5

“It all depends on what you allow yourself to see (& hear”

This is exactly my point. What you are describing in this quotation above is the definition of irrationality, if we are to accept Hume’s definitions of Reason as most of the Western world does now. Once again, by beginning with a conclusion and working backwards you are taking proceeding in such a biased, anti-scientific fashion (as is evidenced in the appalling examples that you give) that one quite simply cannot take serious the claims that you are making.

“The 5(+) Beatles are obvious if you just truley (sic) open your eyes, because this stuff isn't hidden. It's right in front of you”

I will repeat, if you are giving me only examples of photographs, then opening my eyes would be meaningless given that photographic evidence is utterly worthless. Once again, even the most advanced facial recognition systems have told us how minute changes can have dramatic effect on how someone looks in a picture – and no one here is even using the most advanced facial recognition system, which are admittedly faulty enough. So, again, I ask for real evidence not something that no court of law in the world would accept as evidence of anything. Furthermore, if it is obvious, then how come there is not one single shred of evidence? Furthermore, why has there not been anyone in a position to know (rather than just guess) whether or not Paul was replaced corroborate this theory?

“Most people on this website are smart enough to see that even though a person can go through many changes in a year's time, that they are still the same person when pics of them are examined intelligently”

I think the volumes of threads on the replacement of not only McCartney but also Ringo, Courtney Cox, Jewel, Frank Sinatra, Prince, Sheryl Crow, Bob Dylan, Janeane Garofalo on the basis of photographic or video evidence speaks for itself. Naturally if your examples are photos then you can make these absurd and wild accusations about anybody. Of course, such poor evidence has led some to conclude “that replacments are much more common than we had presumed, and that we're only scratching the surface of how covertly, deeply and brutally the media is ‘controlled’ by the state” (see Cameron Diaz Reply #17). Yet this is the natural conclusion when you have zero evidence and examples that could apply to everyone in the whole world. If this is the intelligent examination that is going on here as you put it, we could just about wrap this thing up.

“Here is a pic of Lennon in 1965/1966 compared to Lennon in the late 70's”

Again, those pics show your clear bias as I have already laid out in great detail. You either ignore the Paul pics from the two different periods which show precisely the same similarities (for instance, the OP’s pics – particularly the one copyrighted by Bill Carlson and its counterpart, and the ones above it with him and Jane Asher). Again, like I suggested, look at John’s photos between the Paperback Writer video and the Strawberry Fields video. You could probably create a few screencaps where you find definite similarities (as you could with Paul) but you could also find many to suggest that they are entirely different people, so radical were his changes between those two periods. Again, this is merely a consequence of the appalling approach taken by conspiracy theorists.

“Look at the fades of paul. Closer time difference yet they really don't look anything alike”

I cannot repeat enough that photographs are worthless as evidence of anything. If you want your claim to be taken seriously, you should attempt to find evidence that has any kind of legitimacy. If the field of science or law cannot rely on photographs as evidence, then we cannot accept it here. Since no one believes even the most advanced facial recognition systems to be legitimate in any way, it quite simply has no relevance to this argument or any argument for that matter.

“If the pics don't satisfy, go to the vids they're taken from (if they are).Look at the africa vids. Laughable to say they're JPM. That fade may come from the quick interview vid as the lads are heading inside. 'paul' in motion doesn't look like JPM any more than the frozen pic of 'paul'. Sorry.”

I’m sorry too, but video evidence is just as unreliable. But furthermore, check the video of Lennon from the same period where The Beatles are heading into EMI while recording Sgt. Pepper and compare that to the John in the Paperback Writer video, or the “Jesus comment rebuttal” video and you could come to precisely the same conclusion. In fact, Lennon features are much more radically altered than Paul’s. His hair is even a shade lighter, if you look at these videos. But, again, this is not evidence of anything.

“Suffice to say that I do believe that sometime in the past the original Paul, James Paul, John Paul, or whatever his real first name was, was killed or died mysteriously. Fine, let me believe what I choose to believe with regards to that.”

Not good enough. I could say that there are a million invisible fairies that swirl around our heads everyday, and you couldn’t prove otherwise. But, let’s say we have two positions: me who believes in a million invisible fairies that swirl around our heads and you, who disagrees. But we can’t say that both our beliefs are equally acceptable, just because I constructed some theory out of the thin air on the basis of no evidence other than I just thought of it. And, sure, I could get lots of people to agree (as an example, we have dozens of conflicting religions and cults based on wholly different constructions, all of which gather huge followings) but that wouldn’t justify my position even further. So, this “let me believe what I choose to believe” is pure nonsense. Are we to accept Nazism on the same grounds? Of course not. There is still an “onus of proof” and given that there has not been a piece of evidence to corroborate the “Paul was replaced” theory, that’s a huge onus.

“Do you think the system is going to spend thousands of dollars to surgically work on someone's face to look like, sound like and talk like a celebrity only for a short time until the real thing came back?”

And would they spend this much effort for only three more years of productivity?

Post by eyesbleed on Jun 30, 2008 19:46:41 GMT -5

But when you start bashing me for what I believe, I feel that is going too far. If this is supposed to be a place where someone is allowed to share their opinions, then why am I being attacked because my opinion does not agree with yours? And why is it too much for me to say I think it's a bit over the top? Even if you think it's legit, so why attack my opinion when you don't attack others? What is it about ME that you have to attack me and what I believe in?

I've gone back & looked... I can't find anywhere where you were attacked.

Post by eyesbleed on Jun 30, 2008 20:15:40 GMT -5

“Do you think the system is going to spend thousands of dollars to surgically work on someone's face to look like, sound like and talk like a celebrity only for a short time until the real thing came back?”

And would they spend this much effort for only three more years of productivity?

Ya, except he doesn't really look like JPM or talk like JPM, & the singing is noticably different if ya know what to listen for.

What do you mean "only 3 more years"?The "McCartney" brand is currently one of the wealthiest names in the music business..... today.

If I bring up the subject of PWR around any of my 50-something friends who grew up on The Beatles, none of'em want to hear about that. But most have eventually admitted noticing something funny going on after I brought it to their attention. It took one old friend a couple of years, but he said that while watching the Anthology dvd's it hit him that there was a new guy in the picture. All of a sudden, the obvious differences became apparent for the first time.... after all these years.Now I do have one good old friend who refuses to see anything, & this subject is totally off limits.... Ok, that's fine.We sure aren't here to convert anyone.

Post by eyesbleed on Jun 30, 2008 20:53:11 GMT -5

I'm back just for this post. And it's because of such threads as this, it's beginning to look like TKIN and that is one of the reasons I had left a couple of months ago.

LR, this is the closest thing I can find to an "attack" on anybody.Your word not mine.

For the life of me, I can't figure out how saying that JPM did not die in 1966 is on the same level as the Don Knotts theory. And just because we don't think JPM died in 66, we belong at TKIN? How do you connect this very plausible theory with the king of all obsurd theories??

Post by jguildersleeve on Jun 30, 2008 20:58:01 GMT -5

"Ya, except he doesn't really look like JPM or talk like JPM, & the singing is noticably different if ya know what to listen for"

That is true with the anti-scientific biased approach of the "Paul was replaced" campaign where you are selectively choosing material that fits your already established conclusion. Anyone who has closely examined the Beatles for years however notices no difference (outside of natural differences that occur for any male in their mid-20s - including Paul and the rest of the Beatles).

"What do you mean 'only 3 more years'? The "McCartney" brand is currently one of the wealthiest names in the music business..... today"

So is the "Lennon" brand, but he wasn't replaced. In fact, that case and many others show that the "brand" is more likely to gain more attention and garner more money after they have died (James Dean and Marilyn Monroe would have been perfect examples by 1966 as their estates only stood to gain by their deaths - an unfortunate truth, but this alone undermines your point).

Furthermore, a good conspiracy theory always betrays itself by not understanding the basic fundamentals of temporal distance. Yes, "McCartney" is now a wealthy name but this was entirely unpredictable to anyone in 1966. First, as I'm sure you have seen in the volumes of video, no rock and roll band or figure sustained that much staying power up to that point and most were anticipating the collapse of the Beatles machine at any moment. This anticipation, in fact, had reached its height in late 1966 when no new Beatles album was coming. British newspapers were suggesting that it was the end of the Beatles (as they did the following year with the Magical Mystery Tour film). Remember that at that point, the most successful rock and roll "brand name" as you call it, was Elvis Presley and he was all but a vague memory by 1966 (certainly no one could forsee his comeback in 1968 which took show business by utter surprise). To believe your point, you would have to assume that certain people in 1966 could see into the future.

Finally, the most marketable "brand name" of the Beatles was not "McCartney" but rather was, "Lennon/McCartney". This was not just a partnership in action, but also in contract. Consequently, if Paul wrote a song on his own (ex. "Yesterday"), it had to be credited to "Lennon/McCartney". If Lennon wrote a song on his own (ex. "Give Peace a Chance"), it had to be credited to "Lennon/McCartney". EMI and all who stood to gain knew quite well, then, the power of "Lennon/McCartney" as a brand. The destruction of "Lennon/McCartney" would have been considered just as lethal as the destruction of either "Lennon" or "McCartney". Consequently, I find it hard to believe that the same people who replaced Paul to keep the money machine going would be perfectly fine with allowing the "Lennon/McCartney" partnership to end - particularly since before 1970, neither were credited alone even for solo works.

Post by ramone on Jun 30, 2008 23:12:09 GMT -5

Jg, you make some good points.

But, there are times when we can trust our own senses.Sometimes someone can approach things only on one narrow bandwidth and can discount there own abilities.

It's like the guy that goes to the dr. complaining of a pain.The doc says 'we've hooked you up and according toour scientific equipment, you have no pain'Guy walks out still hurting.And dies later of nothing.

And so some discount their self and rely on outer thingscompletely to validate or invalidate.

Do we want to fool ourselves? No.At the same time, we could swing so far in the other direction,we don't trust our own perceptive abilities at all.All must be validated from the outside completely.

Post by realreality on Jul 1, 2008 3:41:44 GMT -5

Why is he wasting his time? Is it because all his arguments have been heard before and easily debunked? Or is it because anyone who sheds a harsh, rational spotlight on the validity of PID/PWR is simply not welcome? If it's the former I'd be interested to read how. If it's the latter then that's a shame and just saying 'you're wasting your time' in response to such well thought through posts is disappointing.

Anyway, as you've probably gathered I'm new here and a fascinated skeptic. I think NIR is the best of the forums dedicated to this subject, the others seem very close-minded and, frankly, slightly disturbing in comparison.

To end, if skeptics really are not welcome here then this will be my one and only post and I shall simply go back to lurking - there'd be little point in doing anything else. I just felt the need to chime in on this point.

Post by eyesbleed on Jul 1, 2008 7:01:03 GMT -5

I'm sure we have some PIA'er's posting here. I can think of at least one who's a beloved regular.... I'm probably forgetting somebody else.Granted, jgs has given it one hell-of-a-try, but nobody here's buyin. Once you've opened your eyes & clearly see "the other guy", you can't close them again, so what's the point.?

Now if jgs wants to give up on the sales pitch, & settle in, that would be fine. Maybe start by watching the Africa-Bill footage.It doesn't take scientific evidence for anyone to see that's not JPM. No more than you need scientific evidence to tell the difference between John & George, or me & my mother.

The fact that there's something funny going on is obvious.The who,what, & why's are what we try to discuss around here.But I don't care how good the sales pitch is, nobody can sell any of us on the idea that we need to close our eyes again... sorry.

Post by realreality on Jul 1, 2008 8:30:17 GMT -5

Ok, eyesbleed, fair enough. It's good to know there isn't blanket hostility or ridicule of 'PIAers' take on things and that's got to be a healthy state of affairs.

Although I'm in agreement with jgs's posts so far I also agree with you when you say 'there's something funny going on'. What that 'something' is or was I don't know. However, nothing I've seen/read so far has convinced me as yet that McCartney died or was replaced. If either of these things is ever proven then I'll be the first to congratulate (not the right word, I know) the PID believers for sticking to their guns.

As an example of 'something funny going on' I recently saw an excerpt from an interview with Phillip Norman (Beatles biographer) in which he said 'The Beatles is not a normal story, it's a supernatural story...McCartney won't tell you'. He didn't elaborate or explain what he was talking about but I find stuff like this far more interesting and compelling than photo comparisons or backwards messages.

Post by jguildersleeve on Jul 1, 2008 11:36:44 GMT -5

Perhaps if you developed an argument or responding to any of my points that I made, I would be able to give a solid response. Since you provide neither, we can’t proceed much further.

“But, there are times when we can trust our own senses. Sometimes someone can approach things only on one narrow bandwidth and can discount there (sic) own abilities…It's like the guy that goes to the dr. complaining of a pain. The doc says 'we've hooked you up and according to our scientific equipment, you have no pain'. Guy walks out still hurting. And dies later of nothing”

Your point is somewhat unclear. First of all, who dies “of nothing”? Second, your example seems to support my argument much more than yours. What you are suggesting is that the “doc” can never truly know on the basis of physical appearance alone – that this alone does not constitute evidence. This would be correct – it is Cartesian logic, using deductive reasoning, which the Western world has now accepted as the beacon of Rationality. The “Paul was replaced” uses the wildly invalidated method of induction, which makes broad generalizations based on observations. No one accepts that outside of the field of conspiracy theory. Of course we can agree that “scientific equipment” cannot predict someone’s death (especially if they are dying “of nothing” – I’m not sure what you would expect the scientific equipment to find). But we can agree that “scientific equipment” tells us conclusively if someone is alive or dead. A statement such as “I am dying” is difficult to prove with evidence. Even the most deadly diseases may or may not kill you. However, a statement such as “I have a deadly disease” is an objective statement, and requires evidence before you say it conclusively, which can be found quite easily. You can’t just say, “trust my own senses, I have cancer”. No one would or should accept this as anything conclusive – in fact, it would be a ludicrous statement. But this is the logic used by the “Paul was replaced” crowd. It is a faulty logic and is thoroughly unconvincing, as proven by your own example. Are we suggesting that the argument purely comes down to saying “trust me”? Again, though, the problem could just be with the cryptic nature of your writing style.

“Now if jgs wants to give up on the sales pitch, & settle in, that would be fine. Maybe start by watching the Africa-Bill footage. It doesn't take scientific evidence for anyone to see that's not JPM. No more than you need scientific evidence to tell the difference between John & George, or me & my mother”

Again, your investigation is entirely biased given that you have reached your conclusion before you have found your examples – which, I reiterate would not be accepted as evidence in any legitimate field where any kind of serious investigations take place. But as for your example, I have seen the “Paul in Africa” footage, and I find it thoroughly unconvincing. Note, again, the nature of your example. You would not tell me to compare the pictures that the OP provided in the first post here. Rather, you would have me look at grainy footage where Paul has his hair buzzed, has lost weight, and has just grown a moustache (which, incidentally, is what famous people tend to do when they don’t want to be recognized as themselves). Naturally, one would easily see that he looks different because he does - probably the most different that he ever looked during his years in The Beatles. But to use this as an example shows how outright poor the investigation is, particularly if you can only repeatedly give me photos and videos, which would not be accepted in any field. And the fact that you only give me photos and videos where he looked the most different but none of the ones where he looks the most similar, just shows how undeniably biased this whole farce really is.

“But I don't care how good the sales pitch is, nobody can sell any of us on the idea that we need to close our eyes again... sorry”

What you are saying is that, it doesn’t matter if you have any evidence at all (and again, you have provided none to me), you will believe what you want to believe. This is a thoroughly dangerous position and essentially proves that there is no onus of proof to believe this fantastical position. Saying that your eyes are open and that mine are closed may pass in some grade school argument at recess, but in the real world, we actually require real evidence not some abstract, meaningless and ultimately self-serving comment about eyes. Most conspiracy theories generally come out of a need for intellectual superiority – a desire to place oneself in a very special position where “I know something you don’t know, and most of the world doesn’t know and I have attained this position through my wonderful insight, which not very many people have”. This position seems to be found only in conspiracy theory, so if you wish for your claim to be understood as something else, you may want to avoid the open/closed eyes cliché.

Post by jguildersleeve on Jul 1, 2008 13:03:08 GMT -5

"These are the same arguments we've heard time and time again. They are nothing new."

What are you saying? That you have heard that photographs and videos do not constitute evidence in any field outside of conspiracy theories time and time again? If that is the case, what can we conclude from that? We can either conclude that there is some reason then that you are persisting in using non-evidence that you are just not giving, which seems fairly unlikely. I would find it hard to believe that you would produce a post saying "You're wasting your time" but not one explaining why you still look to "photographs" as examples to solidify your theories. The only other thing that we can conclude is that you prefer to live in a world of make believe.

Post by JoJo on Jul 1, 2008 14:45:35 GMT -5

The only other thing that we can conclude is that you prefer to live in a world of make believe.

See.. this appears to be an attempt to escalate into this thread into an argument.

What they mean when they say "we've seen this before" is that four years ago we had not just one or two posters writing amusing things like this, but ten or more.. Unlike four years ago, our tolerance level is much lower.. Please bear that in mind.

Post by skyward on Jul 1, 2008 15:30:33 GMT -5

"These are the same arguments we've heard time and time again. They are nothing new."

What are you saying? That you have heard that photographs and videos do not constitute evidence in any field outside of conspiracy theories time and time again? If that is the case, what can we conclude from that? We can either conclude that there is some reason then that you are persisting in using non-evidence that you are just not giving, which seems fairly unlikely. I would find it hard to believe that you would produce a post saying "You're wasting your time" but not one explaining why you still look to "photographs" as examples to solidify your theories. The only other thing that we can conclude is that you prefer to live in a world of make believe.

Don't you think that people realize the dilemma?

Pictures don't constitute evidence? They sure do if you compare Bozo the Clown to Bugs Bunny, but, alas, there must have been a concerted effort to try to find a replacement that had similar features to JPM, and the remaining differences could have been altered through augmentive surgery.

It would have been quite an undertaking, no doubt about that, but it sure seems that the Apple Dumpling Gang was up for the task. It almost seems that there were several different 'posers' for JPM during their span of years. It is as if they were having fun with how many people they could 'doll-up' to look like JPM.

So, anyway, it kind of puts us in a bind when trying to compare images of people who we think are different based on our first instincts, and of course we're going to be easy targets for the likes of you because we are comparing people who are supposed to look alike. We're open to being called foolish if we say that we see differences, because, as you assert, it doesn't wash in the courts of law, but I also think that reasonable doubt rears its lenient head when comparing images that have curious differences. Reasonable Doubt, Reasonable Differences.

Post by eyesbleed on Jul 1, 2008 17:48:57 GMT -5

I'll tell ya jgs, the main thing that puzzles me is the fact that when Sgt.Pepper first came out, nobody was asking "where's Paul?"But nobody did... the illusion worked perfectly. The facial hair & weird clothes & very different music did the job.Yet the guy in Pauls place doesn't really look like JPM. He's WAY too tall, & his face is way too long. Ya got this big lanky guy who looks a little like JPM standing in JPM's place, yet millions of people weren't freaking out wondering what happened to Paul.Looking at it now, I can't help but wonder how & why that worked so well. I know I was just a dumb kid, but why did I not see that back then?And it's obviously still working on anybody who doesn't care to just stop & open their eyes.IT's amazing how the human mind works.